When a team takes a hard fall from recent residence in the top 25, many college football observers would agree the fastest way back is to sign a top 25 recruiting class.

Texas Tech more or less managed to do that Wednesday, landing a well-regarded class on the heels of its first losing season since 1992. On national signing day, Tech added 17 newcomers to the nine who already enrolled at mid-term.

Four major recruiting services all ranked the Red Raiders’ haul among the top 30 in the nation, and an average of the four rankings actually had Tech’s class No. 25.

Tech coach Tommy Tuberville will be counting on those players to make a 5-7 season a rarity.

“We’re selling the prospect of playing on the next four years’ teams, not last year’s,” Tuberville said, “so it really wasn’t brought up too much.”

Perhaps not so much by the Tech staff, but Red Raiders recruits probably encountered some question about the 2011 record as they were pursued by other schools.

“I think when it was brought up, it was given very little credence by players we were recruiting,” Tuberville said, “and most (opposing coaches) just went on to the next thing and tried to use whatever they needed to use to recruit.”

The 26-man crop consisted of 14 Texas high school signees, nine junior college prospects and three recruits from out-of-state high schools. Among the 14 homegrown schoolboys, Tech landed 10 members of The Avalanche-Journal state Top 100 list, three of whom were in the Fabulous 44.

Those three might have been difference makers in more than one way. Tuberville said aside from their individual skills, the steadfast commitments by Michael Starts from Waco La Vega, Reginald Davis from Tenaha and Dominique Wheeler from Crockett might have helped the class stick together even as the Red Raiders were losing seven of their last eight games.

All three were heavily recruited nationally.

“Once we got guys like Michael Starts, who everybody wanted up until the last day, Dominique Wheeler, Reginald Davis — all those guys that were sticking with us — it gives you some stability,” Tuberville said. “Other players say, ‘Hey, they’re going (to Tech). Something must be good about it.’

“A lot of these kids Facebook each other and say, ‘Hey, come with us. We’re going to make this a lot better than what it is now.”

The 6-foot-4, 280-pound Starts showed up on most blue-chip lists as an offensive lineman, but will begin his Tech career training at defensive end.

Several skill-position signees aren’t locked into one position, Tuberville said.

The only signing-day surprise, either for or against Tech, was provided by Casey Gladney, a long-time Alabama commitment who signed with the Red Raiders. The 6-foot-1, 177-pound South Carolina high school standout could play wide receiver or defensive back. That’s provided he makes it into school.

Tuberville acknowledged Gladney has ground to cover to satisfy eligibility requirements, but said Tech’s staff thinks he has a chance. If so, watch out.

“Gladney is one of those same guys,” Tuberville said. “He could probably come in tomorrow and be a starter or backup for us at corner with his athletic ability and his height.”

Tech went heavy on receivers, signing six, plus getting five each of defensive linemen, linebackers and defensive backs.

Defensive ends coach Robert Prunty said the defensive influx addressed a variety of needs.

“In the secondary, we got cover guys,” Prunty said. “We got speed at linebacker. We got guys that can play the run, but also play the pass and play in space. We got some run stoppers on the defensive line. We got guys who can rotate in and out, and in this league, with the spread offense, guys get tired. We met some needs today.”

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Rebuilding what had already been built. Some coaches can win with his and win with yours. National Signing Day reminds us that when our program was thrown under the bus as a result of the arrogance of our leadership, it was done on the eve of national signing day--thereby strongly reducing the current regime's first recruiting class. All for the sake of self-agrandisement.

I went to the Rivals.com website, clicked on Texas Tech and found all of the Red Raiders recruiting classes back through 2002 and their rank nationally by Rivals.
2012 – 26th, 2011 - 27th, 2010 - 28th, 2009 - 25th, 2008 - 17th, 2007 - 26th, 2006 – 34th, 2005 – 21st, 2004 – 26th, 2003 – 25th, 2002 – 24th.
Looks to me that the numbers say nothing has changed since the new staff arrived other than the results on the field.

This looks like a great recruting class on paper and by their backgrounds. Very glad to see that Ronny Daniels being reinstated. Hopefully both running backs will get well from their surgerys,and wish both well and speedy recoverys. Looks like the defensive side of the team has been adressed with the type of players and coachs needed. I hope the mistakes that have palagued the team the past 2 years have been and will be adressed,onside kick coverage and blocked field goals. A lot can be said for attitude and emotion and leadership, which was sorely missing from the sidelines last year,no more just standing there while we get our Butts kicked 66 to 6, dadgum it, lets see some emotion, Tubbs, get fired up. There will be no more excuses that Im sure Raider fans are getting tired of, Tubbs, put up or shut up.

Yessir, we've got a tough SEC guy. Suspends Smith for virtually his entire senior year thereby wrecking it. Attempted to ruin Daniels' life with a year-long suspension. A regular SEC tough guy. There's just one problem. He's playing in a league dictated by the old Big 12 South. And he doesn't have a clue as to how to coach in his surroundings. I wish it weren't true. But I have eyes.

Tragically, Tubs doesn't have to beat anybody. To fire Tubs is to admit you've wrecked the program. Our leaders with the 6,000 pound heads are not about to take that path. Rangers pitchers and catchers report February 22.

I am not sure which database you are looking at, but you are incorrect about the rivals rankings. I am a long time member of the site and last years class was the highest ranking we have ever had since rivals started.

2002- #48
2003- #44
2004- #33
2005- #37
2006- #25, with 34 total recruits which is now illegal
2007- #NR in top 50, over signed year before
2008- #45
2009- #33
2010- #41
2011- #19, finished at #14 after J. McRoy and D. Simmons signed late
2012-#26

I am looking at www.rivals.com.
Click Football Recruiting at top of page.
Click Team Recruiting Rankings from drop down menu.
Click on Texas Tech at #26.
Use the drop down menu with the year showing for previous years.
Every recruiting class back to 2002 is listed with the national ranking in brackets.

Your 2006 number got me to thinking and upon further review, the number in brackets is the number of signees that year not the ranking. The coincidence that they are both 26 this year lead me astray. Thanks for the correction.

TTU is around ~25 due to quantity, not quality. And quantity can't be replicated due to overall scholarship caps.

TTU has no 5-star and three 4-star recruits. Every team ranked ahead of TTU in recruiting has more than this sum of three 4-5 star players. UT has, for example, ~17. Worse yet, around 10 programs ranked BELOW TTU have more than this sum of three 4-5 star players.

In essence, TTU's program is long on "acceptable" players and short on "highly recruited" players. Not how Tubs was advertised.

Thinking back on Tubs' recruiting reputation, he had AUB classes ranked between 7-22 each year. Same as before he arrived, and continued today. Further, for much of his AUB tenure, he benefited from ALA's probationary status, which surely helped, since Alabama is a two-school football state.

As long as I'm ranting, what's up w/ all these Hancers spouting about Tier 1. We're not there yet. Further, can't be all that special if UTA, UNT, Uof H, etc. are also on track for the same designation.

You can talk about recruiting all day long. It may or may not make alot of difference. Texas consistently gets the best recruiting classes around. Look at how their season turned out the last few years. All of this talk and hype about how good we will be this year based on our recruits is just that, talk. We can speculate and argue about how good this class is all you want to, but the bottom line is what happens once play starts. If Tubs can produce we will all be alot happier. If he doesn't and we have another losing or barely winning season, it will be time for him to go. Let's wait and see what happens. It will be interesting to see what the Team Tubbers say if the production is not there. Something like "one more year, one more year", or will they finally get their bellies full too?

* won 65% of conference games
* 12-31 record against ranked teams (but 6 losses in first two years w/ inherited players from bad team)
* 5-15 record against top 10 teams
* in last three years, 07-09, 6-7 against ranked teams and 3-2 against top 10 teams.
* bowl eligible every year, 6-4 bowl record (counting Alamo in 09)
* highest graduation rate among ALL public univ and #4 overall

I'll take it. Given TTU's location, comparative lack of football pedigree, etc., Leach set the bar quite high. Thus far, Tubs can't even see up to that bar, much less clear it. Time is running out.

First off ML had very little to do with our graduation rates. That was set up by the university compliance department after we received infractions for poor class attendance by our student athlete's.

Secondly you can not compare ML to TT. They are different coaches who coach in a different way. TT does need talent to win because he is more conventional. But he puts in the work on the recruiting trail to do so. If you land top 25 talent year in and year out the odds are in your favor. Clemson, FSU, and aTm are the major culprits of doing less with more.

If you look at our team we have not underachieved, our record has reflected our personal. To ML's credit 2004-2008 he had some exceptional play makers on the outside, with some decent defensive talent.

We started 3 walk-on DB's at certain points this last year. 2 Freshman and 1 soph at D-line, and 2 Freshman LB's. Hard to win with that. Mostly because our 2008-2010 classes were dreadful. Thats recruiting you win some you lose some.

I like your comment. Half of these bloggers that comment don't know much about football. Attrition took place during the coaching change therefore a lot of young players had to see playing time & that's bad for any team across the nation. TTU Boosters are still behind the team & many more are too. Tubs know what it takes to win & it'll show this season.

I don't know what website or page your looking at but clutchcityraider's number are right your are wrong. The highest ranked classes were 2004 - 33rd; 2005- 37th; 2006 - 25th respectively and look what happend 2-4 years later in 2008! (note Leach had one more decent year in 2009 ranked 33rd.

So I agree it isn't JUST about recruits(but it sure is a big reason), but when you are trying change philosophies and style of play there are growing pains. That's one of the reasons UT has suffered to, despite good recruits. They went from a spread offense to trying to run the ball because they didn't have the quarterback to run a spread like they wanted and the younger quarterbacks guys that could didn't have the experience. The defense was still pretty good. You guys will be eating your words over the next couple of years, if not Tubbs will be gone. You guys complain way too much about Leach. It was bad, it's over two years ago, get over it.

* Mike had nothing to do with graduation rates? Really? Isn't the graduation a combination of (1) the decision to recruit or not recruit certain players, (2) the scholastic effort of the player himself and (3) the emphasis and collateral assistance provided by the athletic department?

* The ~25 ranking is inflated, by about ~10 I would say, b/c TTU has only three 4-5 star players. Approx 35 schools have more. TTU class is rated more highly b/c of the VOLUME of the 3-star players. And you can't sign that many every year due to overall limits. It isn't sustainable. In essence, the TT class wasn't much, if any better, than most of ML's.

* Can't compare ML and TT? So far, you're right. ML won ~2/3 of conference games (1/3 for TT), bowl game every year (50% for TT), good bowl games 40% via Cotton, Gator, Holiday (0% for TT).

*** The essential argument has nothing to do w/ "Leachers," "Hancers," etc. Has to do with results. My argument for Leach: He had outstanding results, especially the last 3 years, given TTU's location and lack of football pedigree. The argument for Tubs is (was)? Leach did some good things, but never won anything. Tubs almost won a NC at AUB, and can/will do the same for TTU. So ... at what point do we call Tubs a flop? Year 1 wasn't much, after he inherited a ranked team that returned ~17 starters. Last year was an unmitigated disaster. I just don't want to hear "give it more time" in perpetuity. When is Tubs accountable?

What was leach record his 1st 2 yrs at Tech? I'm not a leach hater or lover but he's gone. I understand that he did good things at tech with the football program but compare their 1st two years at Tech & the difference is 1 win & a losing season due to lack of depth injuries & attrition. Still there is no excuse for a losing season. Recruiting rankings are accurate for a few teams due to coaching philosophies. Tell me what K-State's recruiting class is ranked

You only ask part of the question, i.e., records in first years of a coach's tenure. To more fully inform, you should consider the records in the context of the inherited team. Tubs inherited a very good team (by TTU standards). In '10, Tubs inherited a ranked team returning 17 starters, and did nothing with it. When Leach took over for Dykes, he inherited a decent, unranked team with meaningful departures.

Leach was 14-11 in his first two years and Tubs was 13-12, including some horrific defeats.

To adjust for difficulty of schedule, the best measure, IMO, is conference records. Leach won 2/3 of his conf games. At 5-12, Tubs is around 30%.

Maybe the offense will be solid, if not exceptional, but how can you think that the defense will be much better. The D-line was horrible and showed little potential. None of them could get off blocks, and the linebackers took poor pursuit angles all year. Though that may have been because they had to run around our D-lineman which were about 5 yards off the ball on every play. Our secondary was about as bad a tackling defense as I have seen. We could not cover anyone. The best player was probably Douglass but he was too small for most receivers.

My guess we will be about .500 next year and will go into the 2013 with massive graduations on the offensive side of the ball. Where will we be then? Will you want more of the same?

If the leadership at Tech would come up out of their concrete underground bunkers, they would note that our athletics department, among revenue sports, is the worst in the Big 12.

Their boy Gerald was led by Daddy Knight to hand the job to the boy thereby wrecking mens BB. Their boy Gerald extended Curry on the basis of a 19-41 conference record--amazing. Their boy Gerald handed Spencer the baseball job and then $5 million was spent on the stadium--amazing.

Let's see now. That leaves football. After going 20-6 in two seasons and 12-4 in the league, they fired the coach. We now know there were no grounds for dismissal and that a conspiracy of at least eight months was present prior to the dismissal without cause.

Those of us not in underground bunkers now suffer from radiation burns.

Yep the DL was gettin blown off the line because they were young, inexperienced, due to lack of size & strength. There's no need to explain nothin to some of you because all you see is "nuclear winters" & "destruction". Are you serious? What are you smoking? Its not that serious or bad

Hmm ... We've gone from 3rd best football program in B12 to the 7th best in TX (UT, TAMU, UH, TCU, BU, SMU). But we've got it all over Rice, UH and Sam Houston.

It IS that bad.

When has TTU ever been, effectively, the next-to-worst conference team in football, worst in men's hoops, bottom-half in women's hoops and bottom half in baseball?

I like BCG, don't know enough about baseball to form an opinion, and lament TTU's poor recruiting in women's hoops (we use to have a star player every year (Thompson, Swoopes, Pierson, etc.). And as for football ... 5-12 says it all. That is before two programs join the conference, WVU and TCU, both considerably better than TTU.

We better hope B12 holds together. If it doesn't, we're headed to irrelevance in a non-BCS conference.

Tubs did not inherit a team with 17 returning starters. You're saying that Tech lost only 5 starters between Leach's 2009 season and Tubs 2010. The truth of the matter is that Tech lost four starters on the offense alone. The defense was even worse, as only FOUR starters RETURNED for 2010 (Bront Bird-LB, Brian Duncan-LB, Franklin Mitchem-S, and Colby Whitlock-DT). In addition to the 7 defensive starters who graduated (Rajon Henley, Brandon Sharpe, Daniel Howard, Marlon Williams, Jamar Wall, Brent Nickerson, and Victor Hunter), there were 4 more from the 2nd defensive unit who graduated.

That makes only 11 starters that Tubs "inherited".

Here's the bottom line---Offensively, Tubs inherited a solid team, and they've performed as such in his first two seasons. Defensively, however, Leach started with a much better team than what he left Tuberville. Only half of the Leach's defensive 2-deep returned in 2010. That was compounded by Leach's horrid recruiting on that side of the ball 2007 and 2008, and the end result showed on the field in 2010, and was even worse in 2011.

Players also left the team therefore the team was depleted of experienced players & talent. So there had to be some rebuilding on the defensive side of the ball. Its really glad to see somebody that doesn't talk about Hance & the rest of the administration & pays attention to what's going on with the football team

I went to a recruiting website. Said TTU returned 15 starters in 10, plus 2 part-time starters pegged as backups in 10, not incl Sticks. And the P, K, PR and KR. If these numbers declined b/c Tubs ran off some kids, doesn't change fact that Leach left a strong core. BTW, in Leach's last 7 games, h gave up more than 21 points ONCE.

Deifying Leach is wrong; so are denying his successes and blaming Tubs' shortcomings on Leach.